EDAL case summaries
Country of Applicant: Syria
Keywords: Armed conflict, Country of origin information, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Protection, Real risk, Refugee Status, Serious harm, Well-founded fear
The applicants, a stateless Palestinian from Syria and two Syrian nationals, had been ordered to be expelled to Syria by the Russian authorities, and were detained in a detention centre in Russia pending this. The Court found that their expulsion to Syria would breach Articles 2 and 3, that Articles 5(4) and 5(1)(f) had been violated with regards to their detention, and that the restrictions on their contact with their representatives had breached Article 34.
Date: 15-10-2015
Country of Decision: Slovakia
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Internal armed conflict, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
Date: 29-05-2013
Country of Decision: Hungary
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Internal armed conflict, Internal protection, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
Instead of rejecting the application, the Court granted subsidiary protection status to the single female Applicant and her minor children, as their return to the country of origin would lead to the risk of serious harm (indiscriminate violence).
Date: 28-06-2012
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Armed conflict, Burden of proof, Credibility assessment, Indiscriminate violence, Individual threat, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Internal armed conflict, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Religion, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
In this case the Tribunal considered the general country situation in Somalia as at the date of decision for five applicants, both men and women from Mogadishu, south or central Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland. The risk of female genital mutilation (FGM) was also considered.
Date: 28-11-2011
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Real risk, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Circumstances ceased to exist, Revocation of protection status
When establishing the necessary “density of danger” in an internal armed conflict within the meaning of Section 60 (7) (2) Residence Act/Art. 15 (c) Qualification Directive, it is not sufficient to quantitatively determine the number of victims in the conflict. It is necessary to carry out an “evaluating overview” of the situation, which takes into account the situation of the health system. However, this issue was not decisive in the present case, as the applicant would only face a low risk of being seriously harmed.
Date: 17-11-2011
Country of Decision: Sweden
Country of Applicant: Kenya, Somalia
Keywords: Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Serious harm, Subsidiary Protection
If an applicant has serious criticism of a language test conducted to determine their country of origin, the Migration Board must investigate the grounds before making a decision, or at least respond to the applicant's criticism so that the submission can be completed.
If the Migration Court considers a language test report to be unreliable or inadequate, it can decide to request a new language analysis or return the case to the Migration Board for further investigation, but cannot choose to ignore the analysis entirely.
Date: 07-09-2011
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Political Opinion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Internal protection, Personal circumstances of applicant, Subsequent application
The applicant was eligible for subsidiary protection as an internal armed conflict is taking place in Logar. The applicant, in case of return to Afghanistan, could not relocate to Kabul, since he could not secure his livelihood there. In order to secure his livelihood, he could not rely on property which his family had possessed in the province of Logar.
Date: 25-08-2011
Country of Decision: Spain
Country of Applicant: Ivory Coast
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Race, Religion, Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Safe third country
The applicant claimed asylum in November 2009 alleging a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race and religion. The application was refused by the Ministry of Interior on the grounds that the application did not amount to persecution in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention. On appeal, the High National Court re-examined the application and held that the conflict which had arisen in the Ivory Coast had to be taken into account and on that basis subsidiary protection should be granted.
Date: 08-07-2011
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Iraq
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Real risk, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Child Specific Considerations
The question of whether the current situation in Iraq is an internal armed conflict (nationwide or regionally) according to Section 60 (7) (2) Residence Act/Art. 15 (c) Qualification Directive was left open. Even if one assumes that such a conflict takes place, subsidiary protection is only to be granted if the applicant is exposed to a serious and individual threat to life or physical integrity “in the course of” such a conflict. This cannot be established regarding the applicant in the present case.
Date: 13-04-2011
Country of Decision: Germany
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Individual threat, Indiscriminate violence, Internal armed conflict, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Individual assessment
The applicant, being a young, single man and fit for work, is at no substantial individual risk, neither in his home province Parwan nor in Kabul. Therefore, it can remain undecided if the conflict in Afghanistan constitutes an internal armed conflict.
Date: 03-02-2011
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Internal armed conflict filterInternal armed conflict
- (-) Remove Serious harm filterSerious harm
- Subsidiary Protection 24
- Indiscriminate violence 22
- Individual threat 14
- Internal protection 8
- Real risk 8
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 4
- Revocation of protection status 4
- Armed conflict 3
- Humanitarian considerations 3
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 2
- Burden of proof 2
- Circumstances ceased to exist 2
- Country of origin information 2
- Credibility assessment 2
- Membership of a particular social group 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Religion 2
- Child Specific Considerations 1
- Detention 1
- Effective access to procedures 1
- Effective remedy (right to) 1
- Gender Based Persecution 1
- Individual assessment 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Previous persecution 1
- Protection 1
- Race 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Safe third country 1
- Standard of proof 1
- Subsequent application 1
- Well-founded fear 1
Filter by country of applicant
- Iraq 11
- Afghanistan 6
- Somalia 5
- Ivory Coast 1
- Kenya 1
- Sri Lanka 1
- Syria 1
